Inaccurate performance data for BOB fighters in COD comparing to RL data

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by winny

Ignoring the tit for tat for a moment.

Can anyone tell me if a Merlin that had been converted to 100 could run on 87?

I don't want guesses or in my experience answers.. Please.

The reason I ask is that it appears that in the German machines it was not possible to interchange the fuel. (87 oct B-4 & 100 oct C-3) (Fighter Arm pamphlet Nr.1410144)

Also I recall reading somewhere that a converted Merlin would not run on 87 because of the modifications. I cannot find where I read it though.. Maybe I dreamt it!

The 100 octane mods specify different plugs. Typically you will not want to run 87 octane in an engine with 100 octane plugs.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Seadog

The 100 octane mods specify different plugs. Typically you will not want to run 87 octane in an engine with 100 octane plugs.

According to AP1590B A.L. 4 (November 1940) the different sparking plugs are "very desirable" but not required. So using 100 octane with the regular sparking plugs seems to work, however it doesn't sound like a good idea. In addition it doesn't mean that the 100 octane plugs work satisfactory with 87 octane.

[Crumpp]

According to AP1590B A.L. 4 (November 1940) the different sparking plugs are "very desirable" but not required. So using 100 octane with the regular sparking plugs seems to work, however it doesn't sound like a good idea. In addition it doesn't mean that the 100 octane plugs work satisfactory with 87 octane.

The major change is the cylinder heads. Without those, you are going to have cracking.

In addition it doesn't mean that the 100 octane plugs work satisfactory with 87 octane.

Exactly. It specifies the four types of plugs which may be used for 100 Octane. You would have to look the spark plugs authorized for 87 Octane and see if any of them match the part numbers.

I actually have to put the certificate that comes with a set of plugs in the logbook of the aircraft we work on and sign it. It is a required entry and the certificate must state the plugs are authorized to use in the aircraft.

Aircraft maintenace is very tightly controlled by convention.

[robtek]

Originally Posted by Seadog

So now the story changes to "our 100 octane gave better performance than your 100 octane" when Kurfurst knows full well that only a handful of 109Es used 100 octane, versus the entire RAF FC while the 110 got slaughtered no matter what fuel it used.

In Adolf Gallands own words while speaking to Goering:

A typical biased reply!!!

The difference was in the engines, the 27l Merline needed the 100 octane to compete with the 35l DB601 with 87 octane.
The DB601 with 100 octane was playing in another ballpark and restored the engine superiority until better Merlins appeared.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Seadog

So now the story changes to "our 100 octane gave better performance than your 100 octane" when Kurfurst knows full well that only a handful of 109Es used 100 octane

That is Kurfurst's MO

He has allways played both sides of the argument, posting in bold the items that support his arguments, ignoring the items that weaken his arguments.

With that said

Let's play thier game for the moment..

Lets assume that all RAF planes were running 87 oct and all nazi planes were using 100 oct..

Thus they are asking us to belive that the Spitfires runnin 87 oct were able to clear the skys of 109 running 100 oct

Would be interesting to see how they try and spin that one

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

We have to agree to disagre here. For my point of view, there are too many flies - Pips papers, the note of Squadrons concerned and the lack of any paper saying universal use amongst others- in that ointment to make it believable. That being said, of course the RAF was using 100 octane for a fair number of fighter Squadrons, and for this reason a 100 oct / +12 boost variant is fully supportable for COD. Hence I supported Osprey's poll in the bug thread, despite his often petty and malicious contents. I just disagree that this should be the only variant modelled. I think a 87 octane version should be there as well, and mission builders / server hosts will decide what they would believe to be true.

I have repeatedly challenged you to produce evidence of even a single Spitfire/Hurricane 87 octane operational squadron combat sortie during the BofB. This should be an easy task if, as you contend, the majority of RAF FC Spitfire/Hurricane operational squadrons were using 87 Octane fuel.

So I'll issue the challenge again and again, until you answer it or admit that your contention is unsupported by the historical record.

I'm still waiting for a reply.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Seadog

I have repeatedly challenged you to produce evidence of even a single Spitfire/Hurricane 87 octane operational squadron combat sortie during the BofB. This should be an easy task if, as you contend, the majority of RAF FC Spitfire/Hurricane operational squadrons were using 87 Octane fuel.

So I'll issue the challenge again and again, until you answer it or admit that your contention is unsupported by the historical record.

I'm still waiting for a reply.

Still waiting...